Sentencing laws are back in the headlines - and will likely play a part in this year’s election campaigning.
This week, a news article about the sentencing and early release of George Starling, a repeat sexual offender, reignited the debate about New Zealand’s sentencing laws. It’s easy to see why - it’s one of many examples of how a punishment doesn’t appear to fit the crime, and gives the impression we have a system favouring offenders over victims.
Starling was convicted of drugging and raping a woman in 2011. She was one of two victims on the same night. He was not charged until 2020, and by then had served time for a 2011 rape of a third woman. He was found guilty and the judge set a sentencing start point of 10 years’ imprisonment.
However, once discounts had been applied - for youth and prior good character - the final sentence was reduced by 40 percent, resulting in a prison term of six years. He was also credited for his prior jail sentence, which judges are required by law to take into consideration, and a head injury he sustained after the offending.
Then comes how parole works - under New Zealand law, offenders who are not subject to a minimum non-parole period and are serving sentences of more than two years become eligible for parole after serving one-third of their sentence.
As a result, a six-year sentence may lead to parole consideration after two years. Release is not automatic, but if the Parole Board determines an offender no longer poses an undue risk to the community parole may be granted. In this case, the parole board cited Starling’s low risk, and that he had not offended after his first prison sentence.
After all this maths, the result was Starling was released after serving less than two years.
This case highlights the ongoing tension between rehabilitation-focused justice and public expectations of accountability and deterrence. The arguments for sentence discounts are that they encourage guilty pleas, reduce court costs, acknowledge personal circumstances and promote rehabilitation, while parole provides incentives for prisoners to address their offending behaviour.
This is all well and good, except that this approach fails to adequately reflect the harm suffered by victims. It’s little wonder victims of serious violence or sexual offending feel the legal process focuses heavily on the offender's circumstances while giving less weight to the long-term impacts of on their lives.
One of Starling’s victims stated they had only just began to put the ordeal behind them when they were notified by the parole board that Starling’s first parole hearing was coming up.
The challenge for policymakers is finding a balance between protecting victims' interests, ensuring public confidence in the justice system, and maintaining principles of fairness and rehabilitation for offenders.
The National Party has already instigated sentencing changes, which came into force in June 2025, but recently announced that if it wins re-election it will prohibit judges from treating an offender's "good character" as a mitigating factor when sentencing for sexual offending, as well as increasing support for victims.
It is a step in the right direction - because at present, cases with large discounts and early parole simply undermine public confidence in the justice system.
LISTEN ABOVE
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
New Zealand